Taqleed of only one Madhab

What is the proof of taqleed shaksi i.e. that you have to follow ONLY one scholar/imam. There are verses and ahaadith from which taqleed in general can be proven, but I need some evidences that prove that you can’t follow more than one person. You may say that doing so will mean following your desires, but what if one is following an opinion of a mujtahid on a perticular issue because his ruling is easier to follow. Why is that not allowed. Doesn’t it come about the Prophet (S.A.W.) that whenever he would have to choose between two different things he would choose the easier one? This is an argument that Sh. Zuhaili uses in his Al-Fiqhul Islaami page 94. He says one that page ,”And the majority of scholars say that it is not compulsory to follow one particular Imam on every mas’ala, rather it is allowed for him to follow any Mujtahid he wants… Because there is nothing wajib except what Allah makes and his messenger make wajib and Allah and his messenger did not make it wajib to follow one particular Madhab. He only made wajib to follow scholars without specifying just one. Also the people who asked about rulings did not stick to one person or madhab, instead they used to ask anyone who is available…. This opinion is the preferred one according to the scholars of Usool.

Answer

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh

You have correctly indicated in your query that had taqlid not been constricted to only one school of thought, the general masses would conveniently practice on only the easiest rulings of each school. At times, this would lead them to abandon all four schools concurrently on one act. This would inevitably lead to contradictions and errors and will ultimately lead to introducing a new school which is based on carnal desires and opposes the practices of our pious predecessors. A famous example given is, that suppose a person performs wudu, and thereafter gets cut on his finger which causes him to bleed. According to the Hanafi ‘Ulama,, his wudu is broken, whereas according to the Shafi’ ‘Ulama his wudu is still intact. In order to avoid making wudu, he takes the Shafi’ view on this matter. This man then touches his wife with desire; according to the Shafi’ opinion his wudu is broken, whereas according to the Hanafi school of thought his wudu is still perfect. Seeing that the Hanafi view is easier on this issue, he chooses to follow that school of thought. He thereafter consumes camel meat which nullifies his wudu according to the Hanbali School. He finds that there is more ease in following the view of those who say that camel meat does not invalidate one’s wudu and therefore chooses to follow their view. Thereafter, he stands up to perform prayers. It is clear that according to the vast majority of Scholars his prayer will not be valid. His worship will be based more on human ego rather than Qur’an and Hadith and his entire deen will be unsystematic. It is precisely for this reason that Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) stated, “Our deen is systemized through taqlid.” (Ashraf al-Jawab, 161)

Numerous Scholars spoke of the impermissibility of not making taqlid, and warned of the harms which occur by freely choosing different verdicts from each Madhhab.

‘Allama Kiranwi (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) mentioned, “If (leaving one’s Madhhab for another) is due to (the layman) finding a defect in the forsaken Madhhab, then he is not qualified (to make this judgment). If it is due preference, then again he is not qualified. There exists no reason to change madhhabs except following one’s desires or a thing which is not relied upon. Therefore, it is not permissible (to change madhhabs) especially when this action will open the doors of following one’s desires and ego. (Muqaddima ‘Ila al-Sunan 84 Idarat al-Qur’an)

Ma’mar (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) said, “If a man took the opinion of the people of Madinah with regards to music and anal intercourse; the opinion of the people of Makkah regarding Mut’ah (temporary marriage) and the opinion of the people of Kufa regarding intoxicating drinks, he would be the worst of Allah’s servants.” (The Legal Status of Following a Madhhab by Mufti Taqi Usmani, p. 54 ZamZam Publishers with reference to “Iqd al-Jeed p.62)

Likewise, Sulayman al-Taymi (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) has said, “If you practice on the concessions of every Scholar, then every evil will be gathered in you.”

Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) comments on the above statement of Sulayman al-Taymi saying, “There is a consensus on this. I am not aware of any opposing view to it.” (Adab al-Ikhtilaf p. 134 Dar al-Usr)

Similarly, Shah Waliullah (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him) wrote, “You should know that people – during the first two hundred years – were not restricted to follow one particular Imam. During the third century, the concept of following one particular Imam emerged. There were very few scholars who did not rely upon the opinion of a single Mujtahid and Imam. This was the necessary approach for them at that time.” (The Legal Status of Following a Madhhab by Mufti Taqi Usmani p. 57 Zamzam Publishers, with reference to “Al-Insaaf fi bayan sabab ikhtilaf 57/59)

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya also spoke of the need to follow only one school of thought. Speaking of the harms of following many schools at one time he said:

“They follow – at one point in time – those scholars who see the marriage as void and at another point of time, they follow those scholars who say that the marriage is still intact merely because of vested interest and desires. This kind of practice is not allowed according to the unanimous opinion of the Umma.”

[Note – these statements are in direct contrast to the statement which you have quoted from Shaykh Wahba Zuhali.]

Furthermore, a prominent Saudi Scholar, Shaykh Uthaymin has also condemned the practice of seeking a verdict from many Scholars in order to practice on the easiest view. He says:

“The ‘Ulama mention that following leniencies in fisq (open transgression) – May Allah protect us. The one who follows these leniencies is a transgressor, to such an extent that some Scholars mentions that the one who follows leniencies loses his religion. It is compulsory on a person that when he verdict of a scholar who he trusts in his knowledge and religion reaches him, he should not doubt it…(Sharah Riyad al-Salihin)

From the above mentioned quotes we understand that by choosing that which is easy from every Madhhab, a person is in reality making his ego the yardstick for practicing on deen. He will only be practicing on that which is in conformity with his personal desires. On the contrary, by adhering to one Madhhab, he is in reality practicing on the Qur’an and Hadith as presented to us by the ‘Ulama of the past fourteen centuries who had dedicated their lives to thoroughly scrutinize every masala and ensure that it confirms with the Qur’an and Hadith.

The objection could be raised that during the early times of Islam, the layman would ask any scholar for verdicts and not adhere rigidly to only following one scholar. To this, Faqih al-Umma, Mufti Mahmud al-Hasan had replied, “In those times only good was common. The lowly self did not have any influence in matters of Deen. Whoever referred to a scholar regarding any issue, used to do so sincerely and would act upon the verdict given to him whether it was to his benefit or not. Later, piety and sincerity to that degree did not remain amongst the people. People began to ask scholars for verdicts, and if it did not suit them, they would refer the same issue to another scholar until they found a verdict that suited their desires.”

As for the proofs of taqlidshakhsi, Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi has said, “There is no need to present any proofs with regards to taqlid shasksi (because it is compulsory due to external factors.) (And when something is compulsory due to external factors), then it itself is not emphasized; however those things which are emphasized in the Qur’an and Hadith usally cannot be practiced upon without it. Therefore, it is also deemed necessary. The pre-necessities of an obligatory is also obligator .” (Tuhfat al-‘Ulama 2/291)

Hence, the prohibition of following one’s ego is emphatically phobitied in the Qur’an and Hadith. By necessity, it will be prohibited to follow the concession of different scholars. Consider the following verses:

So, have you seen him who has taken his desires as his god, and Allah has let him go astray, despite having knowledge, and has sealed his ear and his heart, and put a cover on his eye? Now who will guide him after Allah? Still, do you not take lesson? (Al-Jathiya 23)

Hereunder are a few examples of talqid shakshi established from Hadith:

The abovementioned hadith shows that Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) commanded the laymen of the Sahaba to follow the verdicts of Abu Bakr (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) during his period of rule and only Umar (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) during his period of rule.

There are also examples proven in the golden era where the general masses held rigidly on the views of one scholar. The following is mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari:

The people of Madina asked Ibn Abbas the ruling of a woman who makes (her first tawaf) of the Ka’ba and thereafter experiences her menses (before she can make her final tawaf.) Ibn Abbas told them that she may go home without completing her final tawaf. The people of Madina said, “We will not follow your verdict and abandon the verdict of Zayd.” Ibn Abbas replied, “When you reach Madina then enquire from him…” (Al-Bukhari 2/625)

The above narration clearly indicates how strictly the people of Madina held on to the verdict of Zayd (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu). Also note that they did not ask for any proofs. They knew that weighing the proofs of the various scholars is not the work of a layman.

Another proof of taqlidshakhsi is that Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) sent many Sahaba to different areas to teach them deen. It is obvious that people of those areas restricted themselves only to the views of that Sahabi. An example of this is the following narration of Sahih al-Bukhari:

Aswad bin Yazid (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) narrates, “Mu’adh (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) came to use in Yemen as a teacher and leader. We questioned him regarding a man who had passed away leaving (as his her heir) a daughter and a sister. He gave half the estate for the daughter and half for the sister. (Al-Bukhari 6/2477)

Here again, they did not enquire from any other scholar nor did they demand any proof.

In fact, Sahaba strongly exhorted the masses to make taqlid shakhsi. In Sahah al-Bukhari it is mentioned that Abu Musa (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) told the people:

“Never was Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) given a choice between two matters except that he would chose the easier of the two as long as it was not a sin. If it was a sin, then He (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) would be the furthest from it…” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3/2477)

“…It is possible that the meaning is Allah never gave Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) a choice between two actions which the followers of his umma were imposed with, except that he would choice the easier of the two and the more considerate for his umma. It can also mean that Allah did not give him a choice between two punishments that would come upon the disobeyers and those that go against him except that he would choice the easier of the two. It can also have the meaning that never did a person who has not entered his obedience and has not brought faith in him give him an option of two things; one being a peace and truce and the other being war and hardship except that he would choose that which has peace in it. This was before he (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) was given the command of war and not to make truce. It can also have the meaning that his umma never gave him the option of making extreme amounts of worship obligatory or only what is compulsory upon them, except that he would choose the easier of the two due to having mercy for them and for fear that a thing which is difficult might be obligatory for which they will not be able to fulfill. (Al-Muntaqa Sharah al-Muwwata 4/286)

It is also possible that this choice was reserved only for Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) due to him being saved from acting according to his desires. As for the rest of the umma, they should choose that which is closer to piety. This is corroborated by a hadith which has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba (may Allah Ta’ala be pleased with him.)

Ibn Mas’ud (Radiyallahu ‘Anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) said, “Ibn Sumayya is never given a choice exept he choose the one closes the one closer to piety.” (Al-Mussannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba 17/199 Al-Majlis al-‘Ilmi)

‘Aysha (Radiyallahu ‘Anha) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) said, “’Ammar does not choose between two matters except that he chooses the one closer to piety.” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Al-Mustadrak of Hakim)

[Note – In some copies of Sunan al-Tirmidhi the words اشدهما appear instead of ارشدهما. The meaning of the hadith then would be, “When ‘Ammar is given a choice between two things, he would choose the more difficult action.” This narration also appears in Sunan al-Kubra of Imam Nasa’i.

Another possible interpretation of the narration is that this choice is exclusive to those who are responsible of issuing verdicts (i.e. mujtahids). Thus, Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to Abu Musa and Mu’adh bin Jabal (Radiyallahu ‘Anhum) when sending them as governors and teachers to Yemen:

“…Make ease and not difficulty, give good nice and do not frieghten them.” (Sahah al-Bukhari (4/1578)

Therefore, Nabi (Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam) has already chosen that which is easier and more convenient for the umma. There are numerous examples of this in Shari’a; to make masah on khufayn and jawrabayn, qasr in salat for a traveler, the permissibility for the sick to sit and pray, etc are just a few examples. IT is precisely for this reason that siwak is not compulsory for every wudu.

Finally, as for the claim ‘majority of the scholars say it is not compulsory to follow one particular madhhab’, the responsibility is upon the one who made the claim to substantiate it with proof. Merely quoting four, five scholars cannot compare to the multitude of scholars throughout the centuries who have exhorted the laymen to hold firmly to one Madhhab. We pray that Allah Ta’ala show us the truth as the truth and bless us with following it and save us form following our whims and desires.